Chevron decries court refusal to block Ecuador fine

Oct 09, 2012
Protestors hold signs during a demonstration outside of the Chevron headquarters in 2011 in San Ramon, California. Oil giant Chevron said it was disappointed by the US Supreme Court's decision not to block an $18 billion fine sought by Ecuador for environmental damage.

Oil giant Chevron said it was disappointed by the US Supreme Court's decision not to block an $18 billion fine sought by Ecuador for environmental damage in the Amazon.

"While Chevron is disappointed that the court denied our petition, we will continue to defend against the plaintiffs' lawyers' attempts to enforce the fraudulent Ecuadorean judgment," the company said in an email statement.

Chevron appealed to the highest US court an Ecuadoran court order to pay $18.2 billion, which was raised to some $19 billion in August.

The complaint stems from years of unchecked pollution in the Amazon attributed to Texaco, which Chevron acquired in 2001.

Chevron has called the court order a "product of bribery, fraud," saying it was "illegitimate" and not enforceable after plaintiffs filed lawsuits in Canada and Brazil to go after the company's assets in third countries.

Plaintiffs say Chevron has virtually no assets in Ecuador that could be seized.

The US oil firm Texaco contaminated large areas of Ecuador's when it operated in the region from 1964 to 1990, a decade before being acquired by Chevron, according to and local farmers.

After years of litigation, an Ecuadoran court in February 2011 ordered Chevron to pay $18 billion in damages, a ruling upheld by Ecuador's Supreme Court.

Chevron has accused the Ecuadoran judge who ruled on the case of fraud and breach of trust.

Explore further: Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Brazil prosecutors want Chevron work shut down

Dec 15, 2011

Prosecutors in Brazil on Wednesday called for a shutdown of Chevron's activities nationwide and said the US oil giant should be fined $11 billion for damage caused by an oil spill last month.

Chevron accused of graft in Indonesian green project

Mar 17, 2012

Indonesia on Saturday accused five Chevron employees of being involved in a scam to set up a fictitious green project that lost the state some $270 million, a charge denied by the US oil giant.

Chevron blamed in Brazil oil spill: report

Mar 20, 2012

A huge oil spill off Brazil's southern coast was the result of excessive pressure used by oil giant Chevron in drilling the sea floor, according to a report by police and prosecutors published by local media ...

New oil leak found in Brazil: officials

Dec 18, 2011

Brazil's environmental authorities said they have discovered a 10,000 liter leak at an oil platform in the pristine Bay of Ilha Grande, the second such mishap to threaten this country's shorelines in recent ...

Chevron suspends Brazil offshore drilling

Nov 24, 2011

US oil giant Chevron Corporation said on Thursday that it had suspended its current and future drilling operations off Rio de Janeiro state, following a crude oil slick in the area.

Recommended for you

Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

11 hours ago

One of the most prolific oil and gas basins on the planet sits just off Cuba's northwest coast, and the thaw in relations with the United States is giving rise to hopes that Cuba can now get in on the action.

New challenges for ocean acidification research

Dec 19, 2014

Over the past decade, ocean acidification has received growing recognition not only in the scientific area. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of "the other carbon dioxide ...

Compromises lead to climate change deal

Dec 19, 2014

Earlier this month, delegates from the various states that make up the UN met in Lima, Peru, to agree on a framework for the Climate Change Conference that is scheduled to take place in Paris next year. For ...

User comments : 9

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Caliban
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2012
Naturally.

Chevron was well aware of the situation when they bought out Texaco, but were depending on their (then) influence over the Ecuadoran government to shield them from any consequences.

These fines should be assessed against shareholders and company officers, as well as the company's operating/legal budget.

That's how you change the corporate culture of arrogance and abuse.

drloko
3 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2012
Say what you want about the company, but asking shareholders to pay is silly. Shareholders don't have access to this type of information and the majority is held by pension funds, other retirees, and third-party funds that are not privy to this information. First, forcing them to pay is fundamentally against the protections that corporations are legally intended to offer. Second, forcing them to pay would bankrupt many senior citizens whose only crime was to invest their retirement savings in some hedge fund they know little about.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2012
The US oil firm Texaco contaminated large areas of Ecuador's Amazon jungle when it operated in the region from 1964 to 1990


That is the fact, the fact the implies a crime. Cheveron purchased that liability and is now a party of that crime. Guilty as charged is the way I see it.

Howhot
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2012
The US oil firm Texaco contaminated large areas of Ecuador's Amazon jungle when it operated in the region from 1964 to 1990, a decade before being acquired by Chevron, according to indigenous groups and local farmers. Texaco was guilty as charged.

When Chevron bought Texaco, they bought assets and liabilities, so via Texaco's liability, Chevron is guilty as charged. Pay up you SOBs.
jshloram
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2012
Shareholders don't have access to this type of information and the majority is held by pension funds, other retirees, and third-party funds that are not privy to this information.

So you plead 'ignorance'? How about greedy ignorance?

First, forcing them to pay is fundamentally against the protections that corporations are legally intended to offer.


They only 'pay' to the extend of their investment. That is what corporations are legally intended to offer.
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2012
First, forcing them to pay is fundamentally against the protections that corporations are legally intended to offer.
You don't know what you're writing, and have no business playing stocks.
VendicarD
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2012
Odd how Chevron believes that U.S. court have any authority in Ecuador.

Filth.

"Chevron appealed to the highest US court" - article

Howhot is right, as usual.

Chevron purchased not only the assets of the TexasOilCompany but also the liabilities as well.

Texans apparently believe it is their right to pollute a nation, but not their responsibility to clean it up.
rubberman
5 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2012
As gratifying as it is when people/companies get what is coming to them, I can't help but wonder what creative way they'll come up with to pass this along....

I have to laugh at the related stories to the right of the article, clearly Chevron feels they are not accountable for the problems they have created. Good on the US supreme court for letting them know otherwise.
Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2012
Say what you want about the company, but asking shareholders to pay is silly. Shareholders don't have access to this type of information [...protections that corporations are legally intended to offer. Second, forcing them to pay would bankrupt many senior citizens whose only crime was to invest their retirement savings in some hedge fund they know little about.


@drjoko,

Were you even born by September, 2008?

If you were, then you would understand just how wilfully and self-servingly ignorant your above remarks sound.

You would have us believe that it's perfectly alright for Banksters and other Financial industry players to siphon off the value of those poor little ol' seniors investments, but it just isn't at all fair to have shareholders of a company's stock pay a penalty against their earnings in the case of liability?

This would lead to considerably more investment caution in exactly the type of investor who is most vulnerable to predation by those monsters.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.